Re: offlist Re: The Left Needs a New Strategy
Joseph Rabie wrote: "For those (as myself) who consider Capitalism a dead end, trying to understand why Communism could not perdure in a country such as China (or the USSR, or the Eastern Bloc) is of interest." Joe, I went to China several times and I could observe a few things about Chinese Communism. By far the worst aspect was walking down a street with Chinese people and they pointed to a door leading inside to a large courtyard and said, "that's where the cops organize a social club for half of the neighborhood that spies on the other half." This was and remains the major problem of really-existing Communism: the inability to deal with difference politically, leading to an extremely oppressive use of force instead. I am sad to say I observed the same thing in Cuba: the artists I met there go in and out of jail, it's very oppressive. A horrible place as far as I could see, the last place I would ever like to live. Everywhere they brutalize you with the exact same pictures of Che and Fidel that we thrilled to see on posters in France, only there are thousands of them, printed for example on 20-meter long canvases spilling off the balconies of little town halls on the periphery of Havana. Plus there's basically no development, folks are dirt poor. The people are wonderful but they're really crushed by the regime. Cuba has done some great things in Latin America with its communist ideals and its doctors, and the governing classes are incredibly smart and well educated, but in its current form it is definitely not a viable model for the future. China is similar in some respects, but with a billion-plus people and a three-thousand year history of specialized bureaucratic governance it's a little bit different. While in China I also made the effort to study the spread of capitalism in the Shenzhen area and I went to villages where the land had been privatized in two ways: collectively the village leased the newly privatized land to large factories, and individually people had built large rental dormitories for the workers, plus there were bulk businesses all over. This was the pattern that evolved under Deng Xiaoping, on the basis of land privatization. "It is glorious to get rich" and "Someone has to get rich first," as Deng famously proclaimed. In that way the dynamics of capitalist wealth accumulation were unleashed around the country. Needless to say the place is a lot more developed than Cuba because it's basically a managerial capitalist society, whereas Cuba is just Communism on tropical ice. China, on the other hand, has a really perfectly oppressed and controlled working class whose managers been able to take over a huge percentage of global manufacturing operations - with the help and investment of the rest of the global corporate elites, for sure. Despite lots of strikes and organizing (which is going to be seriously hurt by the crackdown on Hong Kong, however), the working class remains loyal and obedient because it's very nice to get some income, and not so nice to get thrown into a reeducation camp, or just beat up or whatever. Some day when you have time, count the number of coal-burning plants that the proletariat has installed in China for the needs of global capitalism. Basically, it's humanity's death sentence right there. Built to meet the demands of Euro-American consumers of course. What's in some sense admirable in the Chinese system, however, is the CP itself. The party is huge (over 91 million members!), it functions to gather information about society, develop policy ideas and subject all that to critique. It's democratic centralism. This is a very broad process including lots of experimentation. Party Congresses then hash it out and what they judge to be the best will become official policy. The experimentation ends, the policies are implemented, and as the years go by they are evaluated in the same ways. If you're not a Uigher or a dissident, and if they haven't built a railroad through your village or decided to tear down your neighborhood so the local glorious rich guy can build a shopping mall, this form of government can be very efficient. That efficiency looks awful right now (the large cities all bear a devastating resemblance to San Jose - the epitome of commercial sprawl in the US) but as climate change intensifies China will be able to take steps that the West will not, failing a change in our way of governing. I think that how China develops in this respect is central to the future of the entire planet, so it's worth keeping an eye on it for sure. It's an incredibly dynamic society right now. Max Herman is totally right to say that all complex industrial societies include specialized bureaucracies, this was identified in the US case as "the managerial state" (James Burnham) and later as "the technostructure" (JK Galbraith). This is what we find across the developed world since WWII: dense interlocks between administrators and corporate hierarchies, supported by
Re: The Left Needs a New Strategy
i know nothing but in america the strategy is red, in europe it's green. On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:49 PM Ryan Griffis wrote: > On Jan 12, 2021, at 2:13 PM, From: Dmytri Kleiner > wrote: > > > > What does? Do I need to be pedantic here and explain that they where > > attempting to use Jo?o Pedro, a leader of MST, against China? They are > > obviously using a third party logic, Jo?o Pedro is not a leader of > > China, it is perfectly ok to disagree with him about China, without > > denying his view on MST! Indeed, the soundest position would be to draw > > about his view of MST while defering to Chinese workers about China. > > > > Also, since the person who posted the quote from Jo?o Pedro is also a > > third party, and not involved with MST, they didn't know that this is > > not the current view or strategy of Jo?o Pedro or the MST, illustrating > > that it is difficult to know if your analysis is sound when you are not > > involved, which is kinda the central point here. > > Dmytri, I have no interest in engaging further in whatever it is you’re > doing, or think you’re doing, here. > > But just to clarify something in this thread. > > I did *not* attempt "to use João Pedro Stedile, a leader of MST, against > China.” You may want to see it that way, but that doesn’t make it true. I > didn’t even make any significant judgement of China or the CCP, of which I > know next to nothing. I don’t need to *use* anyone… It’s a *very* simple > fact that China (and its corporate proxies) is involved in massive > agribusiness in the interior of Brazil that runs counter to the objectives > of the MST, *on its own terms*. Not to be pedantic, but you know, it turns > out that the activities of the Chinese state (or the US or EU) aren’t > contained inside its borders, and therefore the state is responsible for > more than its relationship with its own people. It also has a relationship > with others around the world to whom it is not accountable. *I can’t > believe I felt the need to write this here* I don’t need to pass some > uninformed judgement on anyone to make that observation, I can trust the > judgements of those working in that context, which is *in fact* where my > observations came from. > > I could go back and forth with you about my experience with the MST and > their multi-faceted (and multi-coalition-based) responses to global > agribusiness, including that originating from China. I could go on to > discuss how the work of the MST is connected with a global network of > agrarian movements that take different shapes in different contexts (Via > Campesina which includes orgs like the Family Farm Defenders based in > nearby (to me) Wisconsin). About how I learned of the work of the MST not > because I was trying to leverage something as a “third party,” but because > the work they do has direct relevance to land-based movements where I live. > It’s something to learn from and alongside. But, whatever, based on the > fact that you responded earlier with an article that was probably a first > page search result looking to see who Stedile was, you don’t seem to care > about such details. The only value that article seemed to have for you was > as a discursive retort (seemingly because it included the word “China” in > it while acknowledging shifting geopolitical dynamics). In fact, you even > *introducing* the MST into the conversation was simply a matter of > convenience for you, one amongst an interchangeable array of movements that > you can mobilize as an example. > > Maybe try taking your own advice before committing to your responses, you > know, like not speaking about things for which you have no stakes and of > which you seem to know little. I’ll leave it to others to reply further if > you/they wish to continue. Just try leaving out further gross > mischaracterizations of my comments if you can. > > Take care all, > Ryan > > > > # distributed via : no commercial use without permission > #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Re: The Left Needs a New Strategy
Communo-Capitalism or Capita-Communism or simply Socialism of whatever stripe continues to produce wealth accumulators at the top, middle and indeterminate over the underpaid generators of unstoppable greed, aided and abetted by the learned and facilitator class serving every economic level, serving meaning cutting a deal to plan, document, legalize, advise, apologize, intellectualize (spit) the exploitation. The self-serving notion that thinking, administering and publicizing output is a form of labor is most likely the main duplicity by which these shrewd perpetrators remain a protected and necessary invent-make-and-oil-the machinery of philo-socio-econo cohort. Pardon hyphenation incoherency, it's a magic trick. Need only to observe who cleans the toilets of NGOs to grasp the essence of disparity camouflaged by terms (brands, slogans) like left, right, precarity, capitalism, communisim, diversity, democracy, justice, advocacy. Fortunately, comedy, parody, mimickry, clowning, pie-throwing remain handy barbering tools against hirsuit and bald verbosity. Duck. # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Re: The Left Needs a New Strategy
On 2021-01-16 16:53, Joseph Rabie wrote: Le 16 janv. 2021 à 11:24, Dmytri Kleiner a écrit : Judging China is not a part of his strategy, and should not be, because it's a bad strategy. We should trust the Chinese workers to resolve their contradictions, and focus on our own rather than allowing our elite to propagandize into thinking they are our enemies. My layman's understanding of Communism is that one of its essential markers is the collective ownership of the means of production. China's reversion to a market economy suggests that Communism in that country has for all intents and purposes failed. Instead of judging china according your layman's understanding of doctrine, you should recognize the outcomes, especially those of human development and popular approval of government policies, and figure out how you can achieve these in your own country. It's very unlikely a doctrinaire analysis will help, and any attempt to do so becomes very technical and context specific very quickly, so it's best to forget this mirage. You can't do "a China" in your country. You can, however, work to improve the conditions of people in your country, while working against the aggression of your country abroad. For those (as myself) who consider Capitalism a dead end, trying to understand why Communism could not perdure in a country such as China (or the USSR, or the Eastern Bloc) is of interest. Communism is an ends, not a means, it must be achieved, and it can not be "tried" or just "done." This is the first thing to understand, and rest assured the Chinese workers do understand this. China has a Communist party, but it does not "have Communism" and can not. We do not move toward such ends by implementing some sort of plug-and-play doctrine that checks a list of idealist checkboxes. Communism can not be installed and fix everything like a software upgrade. We move forward by way of a mobilized and militant working class identifying it's principle contradictions and using it's class power to overcome them, and iteratively moving on to the next contradiction. This is a dialogical process, I've made many citations towards work that has elaborated on this, most accessible and applicable in a western context is Freire and McAlevey, the process is broadly called dialectical materialism, which is a fancy way of saying "problems and loops." If you want to understand problems and loops from the Chinese perspective, Mao's On Practice and On Contradiction are key, if you prefer something that wont trigger the PTSD all westerns have from decades of propagandist brainwashing, then you can find a lot of the key concepts in business management literature, old-school like Eliyahu Goldratt "The Goal", which explains the "Theory of Constraints" from a business point view, but of course is bounded by the same logic of Mao's On Contradiction, and W. Edwards Deming's "The New Economics" which explains iterative cycles and statistical management, along the lines of Mao's On Practice. If you want something more tech-conference hipster, then these same ideas, completely devoid of any political content, can be found in the agile and design literature of people like Jeff Gothelf. -- Dmytri Kleiner @dmytri # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Re: The Left Needs a New Strategy
> Le 16 janv. 2021 à 11:24, Dmytri Kleiner a écrit : > > Judging China is not a part of his strategy, and should not be, because it's > a bad strategy. We should trust the Chinese workers to resolve their > contradictions, and focus on our own rather than allowing our elite to > propagandize into thinking they are our enemies. My layman's understanding of Communism is that one of its essential markers is the collective ownership of the means of production. China's reversion to a market economy suggests that Communism in that country has for all intents and purposes failed. For those (as myself) who consider Capitalism a dead end, trying to understand why Communism could not perdure in a country such as China (or the USSR, or the Eastern Bloc) is of interest. Joseph Rabie. # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Re: The Left Needs a New Strategy
On 2021-01-16 02:22, Joseph Rabie wrote: China is a single-party state ruled by a Communist Party. I'm sure that the Chinese workers know this, so not sure why you're telling us. If you are interested in how the Chinese government works, Daniel A Bell is interesting, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OGjUCbiDY At the same time, it has become the leading actor of the global market economy, with the usual trappings of capitalism - millionaires, stock exchanges, labour exploitation, etc. So, like the USA, Canada, Germany and the many other countries, then. In the face of such contradictions, how might one even consider China as being capable of furthering any genuinely leftist strategy at all? Because it has mobilized and militant workers, which is the only thing that makes a left strategy possible anywhere. As already stated, the strategy I support is fighting to improve the conditions of the people in our countries and fighting to prevent our countries from engaging in aggression abroad. Judging China is not a part of his strategy, and should not be, because it's a bad strategy. We should trust the Chinese workers to resolve their contradictions, and focus on our own rather than allowing our elite to propagandize into thinking they are our enemies. -- Dmytri Kleiner @dmytri # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Re: The Left Needs a New Strategy
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 7:00 PM Molly Hankwitz wrote: "I only hope that our police and our National Guard don't turn their guns onto a democratic system which has begun to change by virtue of the voteas leadership like Ocasio-Cortez and Stacy Abrams have shown." Change by the vote is the point right now. Big gains from our side have provoked a reaction from the right. The gains are not just this law or that politician: they spring from a growing social capacity to listen to others, just as you pointed out with your totally dialogical reply to me, Molly. That kind of listening, when it begins to occur between the classes and the races, becomes a threatening force challenging hierarchical norms. Memories are short, but just a few months ago we had the George Floyd protests that drew half the country into a movement against police violence, and before that, we had the democratic socialist movement around Bernie Sanders that has brought precarious labor and healthcare issues to the center of the Biden administration. Now the desperate drama from the superpatriot crowd is forcing something even more impressive: an anti-racist shift at the heart of the American state, with all that entails, opening up avenues for every imaginable type of work towards social and environmental justice over the next few years. In my view this moment of US society is a new avatar of the Left, but one that drinks straight from the source: because the central technique being employed - transforming social relations for political ends - was first conceived by Antonio Gramsci in the 20s and 30s, and then brought into the contemporary world of cross-racial politics by Stuart Hall. That type of barrier-crossing practice began in American educational institutions in the 1970s, with the ambition to give disenfranchised people the chance to create their own cultural canons; but it has never ceased raising questions, and making people rethink their privileges, to the point where other categories of traditionally entitled citizens started to feel very uneasy. Like industrial workers and military men threatened in their masculinity, or middle-class Whites threatened in their property values, or high-end entrepreneurs threatened in their capacity to profit. It came to the point where laws and mores started putting the squeeze on the capacity of these dudes to put on the squeeze, if you see what I mean. And so force came into the picture. Now we don't know exactly what to do, or how to understand what we are collectively doing, which is why I started talking about strategy. We are told that an armed revolution of gun-toting QAnon-hyped violent militiamen and random nationalist evangelical crazies might break out this weekend; and we find ourselves desiring and fearing the protection of the National Guard. You know, during the George Floyd protests I was angry to see National Guard troops in Chicago, and I bet you were too Molly, but now I'm getting the point. The point is hold up something better against a bunch of White supremacists who want to start a fascist regime. The fascinating thing is that we, the Left, who always worked toward revolution, increasingly find our power in the institutional system - precisely because we have transformed it so deeply over the generations. This process of social metamorphosis has nothing to do with the old battles between capitalist or imperialist countries, nor really with battle at all, because it's basically against violence, enslavement, rape and expropriation. But control is still an issue, because to be autonomous, as a collectivity, you have to control your own destiny at least to some degree. If you are trying to bend the course of an entire modern country to the left - which is what the Progressive bloc is trying to do right now - then you have to take on that country's operations, you have to keep the peace, you have to put out the forest fires and stop the pandemic. Right now I find that great to aspire to. Like a lot of people I want to work with these new possibilities: this moment is a great teacher. On the one hand I'm seeing all this through the spectacles of Gramsci, whose strategy was the war of position, paradoxically inside the enemy where you have to make the terrain, rather than taking it in a raid from outside. Making the terrain is that social creativity I was talking about: it's all those molecular shifts of people becoming simultaneously more respectful and more outraged, and building organizations to put their politics into effect on the ground. That's a vast generational thing in the US, youth have really changed. All of that is our way of queer warfare and its doing pretty damn good among lots of other things. But on the other hand if you think about the global history of the Left, it's an incredible irony for sure, because the ragtag wannabe army of this weekend somehow represents the old industrial working class: damaged in the heart by extraction and religion and
